53 



NOTES. 



Note on the kxistenck of two editions of Ferussac's Tableaux 



< Si'STEJrATiQUES. (Read 8fh March, 1912.) — It does not appear to be 



generally known that there were in 1821 two printings of what, from 



[ the pagination, may be called parts ii and iii of the above work. I have 



only examined two copies, one in the Natural History Museum, South 



Kensington, and the other in the Jenyns Library, Bath Literary and 



f Scientitic Institute. 



I The first page of part ii, in each case, is inscribed : " Tableau 

 I Systematique/de la Famille/des Limaces, Zimaces, / servant de Supple- 

 : ment provisoire / a notre Histoire naturelle de ces Animaux. / (Voyez 

 i page 21 et suivantes de notre ouvrage.)/" In the South Kensington 

 •copy, however, the date which follows is "Janvier 1821 ", while in the 

 ; Bath one it is " Juin 1821 ". 



I The ensuing twenty-eight pages of this part are alike in each copy, but in 

 ' the following part, " Tableau Systematique / de la Famille / des Limacons, 

 i Cochlece /," occurs what must be a fruitful source of confusion to reference 



■ hunters. On p. 3 of the January printing is an " Avertissement ", which 

 • occupies four pages, and p. 7 commences with " Observations Generales 

 t sur la Famille ". The work thus runs on to p. 114, and concludes with 



a " Re'capitulation des espfeces mentionnees " and " Liste des Espfeces 

 . . . . que nous n'avons pas vues ". 



i In the June printing of part iii, " Tableau . . . des Limacons," 

 i the "Avertissement" is omitted, and the "Observations Generales" 

 ' begin on p. 3, with the result* that from this point to the end of the 



■ volume each page bears a number lower by four than the corresponding 

 ' page in the January print, and the final " Recapitulation " appears on 



p. 110 instead of p. 114. There is also one extra page, 111, containing 

 : a " Table des Matieres ", in which references are correctly made to the 



pages as they are numbered in this printing, but it is noteworthy that 

 : on p. 67, in the list of corrections and additions, the altered numbering 

 ; has escaped notice, so that each correction is referred to a page foiu- 



later than should be the case, as if the pagination were the same as in 



the earlier printing. 



Since the above was written, Mr. Gude has informed me that 



his own copy of the Tableaux, as well as that in the library of the 



Zoological Society, agrees with the Bath edition. 



M. COXNOLLY. 



^^ote on Pi.eurotoma {Clionella) bipartita, Smith. {Read 

 8th March, 1912.) — Dr. Herman Strebelhas very kindly called my attention 

 to some confusion attaching to this South African species. It has arisen 

 from a typographical error ; bipartita should have been printed tripartita. 

 A reference to the description at once shows this, since it is stated that 

 the whorls are divided into three parts. This description was published 

 in 1877, but the previous year Weinkauff'described this shell as P?e?/ro<o?Ha 

 {Clavatulu) tripartita, E. Smith, from specimens received from Mr. G. B. 

 Sowerby, who doubtless had named his shells from the British Museum 

 collection, where the tablet was labelled tripartita, Smith, although at 

 the time the description had not l»een published. 



